Yup, they do exist - the lawyers' equivalent of HTTs. Very expensive and sometimes more voodoo than useful.

Mine was the country boy version - which works in small counties (i.e., Northern Michigan, whose congressional district covers 1/2 of Michigan's landmass). The idea is networking.

If juror 32 is from a small community, you call up your friends there (swear them to absolute secrecy - actually they are more worried about you telling the world what they say) and find out everything they are willing to tell you about juror 32, that person's friends, family, enemies, etc. Basically, a list of pretty standard questions depending on the case.

If the case was in a county where I had no or little network, I'd associate a lawyer there who had a network and knew how to use it. The bottom line is that you end up with a list of Yes, Probably Yes, Don't Know, Probably No, No. You then become better informed when you meet the jurors at the voir dire when the jury is selected.

Let us be clear. A trial lawyer is not looking for a "fair and impartial" jury. E.g., if I represented Gus Hall in the 1950's, I'd want a jury of Communists or as near as I could get to them. If I represented Tom Metzger or David Duke more recently, I would want Stormfronters or as near as I could get to them.

I would get neither because the guy on the other side would be knocking them out by challenges - as would I to "his jurors". So, assuming the jury array (all prospective jurors) is inclusive of the community's demographics, the net result is as close to a "fair and impartial" jury as we can get.

All this is not news to you, Slap, but it may be informative to those here who have not been involved in litigation.